Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
..
THE PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA &ORS
..
THE RESPONDENTS
2. This Honble Court is well aware of the extensive public interest litigation
done by CPIL and is cognizant of the huge impact of its landmark
decisions in the matters agitated by CPIL. In not one of the CPIL matters
has this Honble Court questioned the bona fides of CPIL. In not even a
single CPIL matter has this Court found the petitions of CPIL motivated. In
not even one of the cases did the Court find CPIL acting on behalf of a
party having a vested interest.
against Reliance which was being heard by the Supreme Court. We regret
the error.
7. It was the Mail Todays report which ShriFali Nariman had cited in his
letter to the Registrar General dated 14.01.2016 stating that he was not
involved in vetting the PILs filed by CPIL. In view of the confusion created
due to wrong reporting,Shri Nariman has now resigned from CPIL.
10. In view of the foregoing, the petitioner seeks leave of this Honble Court
to file these submissions to address the queries concerning the
background of the petitioner, the system followed by the Petitioner in filing
PILs, the scrutiny of the information received and other related issues.
PIL
proposals
and
the
material
which
comes
with
(i.e. Kamini Jaiswal) can act to file cases after consulting the aforesaid
sub-committee either telephonically or by emails.
13. In the petitions filed by CPIL, affidavits in support have mainly been filed
by the General Secretary. This position has been held byShriAshok Panda
and MsKamini Jaiswal. In fact, it is settled practice of this Honble Court
that PILs may be entertained on mere letters, press reports,suomotu, etc.
on the basis of the credibility and quality of the information and the
standing of the petitioner. CPIL states that in the present case no
material has been received from any business rival or competitor.
CPIL has adhered to and stands by the practice of filing properly
documented petitions supported by the affidavit of the Secretaryin
accordance with the settled practice ratified by the Resolution dated
04.01.2013.
14. It needs to be pointed out that it is settled law that it is not as if petitions
filed by political rivals or interested individuals would be automatically
rejected, but it is the quality of the material, evidence and nature of the
controversy which triggers and invites the interest of the court in
entertaining a PIL. In this connection, the following authority may be cited:
VishwanathChaturvedi v. UOI (2007) 4 SCC 380 at Pg 394-395,
Extracts of para 37 and 39:
37. The ultimate test, in our view, therefore is whether the allegations
have any substance. An enquiry should not be shut out at the
threshold because a political opponent of a person with political
differences raises an allegation of commission of offence
39. The test which one has to apply to decide the maintainability of the
PIL concerns sufficiency of the petitioners interest. In our view, it is
wrong in law for the court to judge the petitioners interest without
looking into the subject-matter of his complaint and if the petitioner
shows failure of public duty, the court would be in error in dismissing
the PIL.
15. It may be mentioned that in Vineet Narain vs. UOI (Jain Hawala case)
reported in (1998) 1 SCC 226, the petitioners were Vineet Narain (a
journalist), Rajinder Puri (a Journalist and Cartoonist), Kamini Jaiswal and
Prashant Bhushan. The petition relied upon photocopies of the Jain diaries
which prima facie implicated powerful individuals and averred that they
were in possession of CBI.
disclosed. Yet notice was issued to CBI which was forced to admit the
existence and contents of the Jain diaries. It was on the strength of the
existence and content of the diaries seized by the CBI that the whole
litigation
went
forward.
Eventually,this
Honble
Court
established
16. The Governing Body of the society in a meeting held on 05.10.1996 had
constituted a sub-committee of five members for deciding the causes to be
taken up and their names were as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Hence,
act
to
file
cases
after
consulting
the
aforesaid
A(Page
__________).The
members
who
signed
this
resolution included:
a) Mr. Anil B Divan (President)
b) Mr. Rajinder Sachar
c) Mr. Fali S Nariman
d) Mr. Shanti Bhushan
e) Mr. Colin Gonsalves
f) Mr. Prashant Bhushan
g) Ms. Kamini Jaiswal (General Secretary)
h) Mr. Ashok Panda
i) Mr. Kamal Kant Jaswal
j) Late Admiral R H Tahiliani
k) Mr. AnoopSaraya
19. CPIL had filed an application for the removal of the then CBI Director
from the 2G case (IA 73 filed in CA 10660 of 2010) in which a copy of the
entry register of the residence of the CBI Director was filed. This Honble
Court vide order dated 15.09.2014 directed as underIn our opinion, before
we pass any order on the affidavit at the first instance, we request Shri
Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel to disclose the source of his
information to us which has formed the basis of the averments and
allegations made in the affidavit filed before this Court. The information
that will be disclosed by Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel shall be
kept in a sealed cover and to be opened by this Court only.
21. The role played by the petitioner CPIL was recognized and acknowledged
by this Honble Court in the 2G scam case while cancelling the licenses.
This Honble Court in the judgment of Centre for Public Interest Litigation
&Ors. vs. Union of India &Ors. reported in (2012) 3 SCC 1 stated:
Before concluding, we consider it imperative to observe that but for
the vigilance of some enlightened citizens who held important
constitutional and other positions and discharged their duties in
larger public interest and Non GovernmentalOrganisations who have
been constantly fighting for clean governance and accountability of
the constitutional institutions, unsuspecting citizens and the Nation
would never have known how the scarce natural resource spared by Army
has been grabbed by those who enjoy money power and who have been
able to manipulate the system. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed
in the following terms: The licences granted to the private respondents on
or after 10.1.2008 pursuant to two press releases issued on 10.1.2008 and
subsequent allocation of spectrum to the licensees are declared illegal and
are quashed.
Source of information/documents
22. The offices of Shri Prashant Bhushan and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal generally
view documents coming from non-independent sources with great care,
but, if the information appears credible and shows evidence of serious
harm to public interest which needs intervention by the Court, then the
same isappropriately used in the PIL. This is done after a dispassionate
and objective analysis about its credibility.
Moreover, most people who have to deal with the government are
reluctant to go to court against the government as they may be adversely
affected in their dealings with the government in future. They are also
apprehensive about intimidation, reprisal and violence.
24. CPIL was formed precisely for the purpose of taking up PILs in an
organized manner purely in public interest. Over the years, CPIL has
established its credentials as a genuine public interest organization by dint
of an array of PILs filed before this Honble Court and before the Honble
High Court of Delhi.
25. CPIL has not solicited any donations.The lawyers who pursue cases for
CPIL do it pro bono. Out of pocket expenses, like court fees, photocopying
and typing charges, are defrayed from the contributions made by the
members.The junior advocates who assist in filing PILs work in the
chambers of Shri Prashant Bhushan or Ms. Kamini Jaiswal and are
remunerated by them personally. They are not paid out of CPILs funds.
26. Some of the important PILs filed so far by the CPIL are recapitulated
below..
S.No.
1.
PIL Name
CPIL and ors vs
Union of India
&Ors (CA 10660
of 2010)
Summary
Petition
sought
court
monitored
investigation
into the 2G spectrum
allocation scam
2.
Petition
sought
cancellation
of
2G
spectrum allocation and
122
telecom
licenses
awarded in 2008
3.
4.
5.
Status
This Honble Court is
monitoring
the
2G
investigations for the last
5 years and had also
directed the then CBI
Director
to
recuse
himself from the case
vide
order
dated
20.11.2014
This
Honble
Court
cancelled
the
entire
allocation
of
2G
spectrum
and
122
telecom licenses, and
directed fresh auction
vide
its
judgment
reported in (2012) 3 SCC
1
This
Honble
Court
quashed
the
appointment
of
the
Central
Vigilance
Commissioner and laid
down an important legal
principle of institutional
integrity
vide
its
judgment reported in
(2011) 4 SCC 1
This Honble Court by an
interim order directed the
CBI
to
conduct
preliminary inquiries on
the basis of the petition
filed by the CPIL. The
petition is pending.
This Honble Court had
6.
7.
8.
Disinvestment
was
disallowed
by
this
Honble Court without
parliament
approval.
Judgment reported as
(2003) 7 SCC 532
inquiry or investigation
against certain officers of
the
Government
and
Public
Sector
Undertakings
(PSUs),
nationalised banks etc
above a certain level.
9.
CPIL
V.
UOI &ors
CWP No.
180
of
2004
Thispetitionhas beenfiledin
theSupremeCourtin2004
tochallengetheconstitution
alityofthePresidentialOrder
1950
accordingtowhichonlythem
embers
of
scheduledcastesfromHind
u,BuddhistandSikhreligion
sarebenefitted and the
converts
from
Christianity/Islam
are
denied the benefits.
Petition
has
been
allowed with specific
directions
to
the
Government for stopping
misuse of public funds on
such
advertisements.
Reported as (2015) 7
SCC 1
11. CPILV.UOI&ors
This petition was regarding
CWPNo. 681 Of harmful effects of various
2004
chemical additives which
are deliberately added by
the
soft
drink
manufacturers in the soft
drinks.
In this Petition
directions were sought for
proper regulation of the
ingredients of the soft
drinks,
their
full
disclosures and also for
advisory services.
16. CPIL
CWP
2015
v
UOI, This writ petition has been
1815 of filed before the Honble
High Court of Delhi
seeking
direction
for
expeditious investigation
of corruption cases in
AIIMS by the CBI, as well
seeking
disciplinary
proceedings that were
recommended
by
the
former CVO, AIIMS.
2) Shanti Bhushan
3) Colin Gonsalves
5) Prashant Bhushan
Dated 19.01.2016
New Delh